This is burned with NEC 3500@12X. But as the transfer rate test shows there are no slowdowns in the reading speed, also, it plays perfect on both of my standalone dvd players. However, the scan looks horrible, but, this is a typical scan I get with these discs and they all play fine. Can someone explain this?
I would do the scan at 4x but i wouldnt worry about that type of test,as long as you get a good reading on the transfer rate test and your dvd player plays it fine,my dvd player will choke on some discs that have average pi of 2.5 and pif of .02.
I agree %100. For all practical purposes as long as you can play your burned DVD in your stand alone DVD player and watch the movie with no problem, you should be so up tied and bugged down with these PIF, or other testing.
never used daxon media but from what i see the scan doesn’t leave the good territory until the very end so unless you watch the credits it might not even show
scans done at anything greater than 4x are pretty meaningless
all the PI fails and errors on your scan will go awayif you set the MAx speed to 4x
From what I have read, idividual single spikes usually will not effect playability (especially for pi errors). From my own experince, sometimes spikes are caused by multitasking or other programs runing in the background while scanning.
sarahjh69: Many would disagree that scanning abouve 4x is meaningless. This is a debatable issue, and not a universally accepted truth. That being said, I scan at 4x most of the time because I find it to be more accurate. However, I find that 8x is fine for a quick test.
In fact, 8x scanning is standard for Benq 1620. Even 16x scanning works fine with good media like TY and Verbatim.
4x scanning is only normal for LiteOn drives.
As you all may know the DVD specs say
PIF < 4 (1 ECC)
PI < 280 (8 ECC)
for scanning speed of 1x.
When the first LiteOn DVD burners (first drives with error report capabilities) came out, some CD Freaks here said, that 4x scanning is the way to go, because of the amount of time a scan @1x needs. The errors should not be greater than in the specs although scanning with 4x, so that one can be sure to have a very good disc.
This is a definition for some good reasons, but you also can define your own standard and compare all your discs @8x scanning speed. This would mean to scan all your discs @8x with the same drive and same firmware to get comparable results.
To go with the specs you’d have to scan @1x (you play Video-DVDs @1x, so it can’t be wrong to check those out @1x, too)…
if comparing Benq 1640 results with liteon results
benq errors x 20 = liteon errors
most coasters look good when scanned on a Benq
Just because I am a smart ass, …mabey thats because lite-on makes such junk…mabey the benq is just that much more accurate.
on the more serious side, i don’t own either of these drives, but most owners of the 1620 seem very pleased with the 1620’s error checking abilities. most of the scans i have seen posted lately are done on it…
I did have both and that is how I came to calculate my formula
A liteon scan showing PI errors of 400+ would skip on movies
A BenQ scan showing PI errors of 30+ would skip on movies
(the same movie disk showing 30+ on one would show 400+ on the other)
The Benq is one of the best readers; that is why it can scan reliably at 16x speed with good media. The fact that the LiteOn has problems reading and produces more errors, does not indicate that it is better; quite the opposite is true. I am so glad I could swap my LiteOn for a Benq within the 14 day period
not me… i went the other way. the reason was that the benq is a little too good of a reader… better in fact than most dvdplayers which means that it might be able to read a disc that a player might not. additionally it was not fast on ripping burnt dvds… infact is was so slow that i could not go disc to disc from the benq to an 8x nec. the litey reads burnt discs @ upto 14x. as far as burning goes however i wouldn’t burn a disc in the liteon to save my life. benq is a very good writer on +r
exactly what I thought too, why scan in a device that can read anything, I want my scans to reflect how the disk is likely to play in my standalones.
There is some logic to this, but not a lot.
“Why scan in a device that can read anything”? Well, why play in a device that can NOT read anything? Why not buy a good and affordable dvd standalone (like a philips 630/642) that plays any good NEC or Benq burn, in stead of having to use a crappy dvd burner to test good burns that your standalone can’t read properly?